Without naming Fachin, Dino criticizes promise to end fake-news inquiry ‘to receive applause’

Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino challenged the idea that a criminal inquiry can be closed simply because it has been open for a long time. Without naming Chief Justice Edson Fachin, he questioned whether a judge could promise an inquiry’s conclusion “as if he were a candidate or to receive applause.”

Fachin had defended ending the fake-news inquiry as a step toward easing tensions during the Supreme Court’s escalating crisis. Dino argued that a long process, by itself, does not justify dismissal. He said the proper course requires “the filing of the appropriate criminal actions and dismissals.”

“

Is it possible for a judge, whoever he may be, to promise an inquiry’s end as if he were a candidate or to receive applause?

“Before the statute of limitations expires, should an inquiry be archived because of lengthy proceedings?” Dino asked in a social media post. He also questioned who would decide what counts as a long proceeding, asking whether the answer would come from personal opinions or legal and procedural criteria.

“

Before the statute of limitations expires, should an inquiry be archived because of lengthy proceedings? And who decides what counts as lengthy proceedings? Personal opinions? Or legal and procedural criteria?

Dino pointed to the Supreme Court’s Corte Aberta panel, which lists the court’s proceedings. Although the fake-news inquiry began in 2019 and has been open for seven years, he said it is not the oldest inquiry still pending. The oldest began in 2011 and is being handled by André Mendonça, who inherited it from former Justice Marco Aurélio Mello.

Dino also defended individual decisions by justices, saying they can be “essential in a system of binding precedents.” If every issue with established case law had to go before panels, he argued, the number of judgments would fall and delays would increase. He said the debate over judicial reform had been affected by “personal hatred,” “electoral interests” and “lies.”

“

If all issues with established case law had to go before panels, the number of judgments would collapse and delays would increase.